Judge finds Manning’s “whistleblower” claim unpersuasive

posted at 4:01 pm on January 19, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

When this entire, sordid Bradley Manning affair broke a couple of years ago, I’ll confess that even I didn’t think we’d still be waiting for the opening bell to ring on the Court Martial in January of 2013. Granted, with the mountain of evidence to go through, witnesses to round up, computer gear to autopsy and intelligence resources to filter, the Army was clearly going to take their time to get this right. But I wouldn’t have guessed that it would be December of 2012 before Manning himself even uttered a word before the trial. Of course, the prosecutors could have been ready to begin before now, but Manning’s “defense” team – if you can call it that – tossed out one delay after another to muddy the waters and look for an escape clause.

But at long last it seems that we’re about to get down to business. One of the – hopefully – final cards that Team Manning was trying to play was an attempt to pass the Private off as a “whistleblower” of alleged government crimes. But as with the rest of these bits of ducking and weaving, the judge remained unimpressed.

Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of being behind the largest leak of state secrets in America’s history, has been denied the chance to make a whistleblower defence in his upcoming court martial in which he faces possible life in military custody with no chance of parole.

The judge presiding over Manning’s prosecution by the US government for allegedly transmitting confidential material to WikiLeaks ruled in a pre-trial hearing that Manning will largely be barred from presenting evidence about his motives in leaking the documents and videos. In an earlier hearing, Manning’s lead defence lawyer, David Coombs, had argued that his motive was key to proving that he had no intention to harm US interests or to pass information to the enemy.

While Manning’s apologists will doubtless cry foul yet again over this decision, it really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. When you’ve already essentially admitted to flushing massive amounts of classified data down the internet crapper, the specific reason as to why you did it really isn’t going to be all that fascinating to the military. There was one aspect of the attempted defense which was particularly jaw dropping, though, even for Manning’s lawyer.

In a limited victory for the defence, Coombs and the defence team will be allowed to talk about the soldier’s motives on two narrow counts: where it can be used to show that he did not know that his leaks would be seen by al-Qaida; and as evidence that he consciously selected certain documents or types of documents in order to ensure they would not harm the US or benefit any foreign nation.

I’m sorry, but did you really say, “consciously selected certain documents or types of documents” to leak? He dumped more than 750,000 files. That’s three quarter of a million. How many files did this guy have access to? And more to the point, how much free time did Manning having on his hands where he could selectively sort through that massive volume of material to pick and choose? That’s not just unlikely… it defies belief entirely.

Also, the entire idea of being a “whistleblower” would rely on precisely such precision in leaking specific evidence regarding some action or series of actions by the government purporting to demonstrate malfeasance. And were that the case, Manning might have a leg to stand on. But he simply dumped every diplomatic cable and war report he could round up into the hands of Julian Assange without any indication that he was being selective. This is a fact which I’m sure will not be lost on the judge, either.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Can you imagine the waste in man-person-hours and borrowed federal costs (treasury)revenue on this POS — when, in a rational society, this would have ended quickly (after successful interrogation to gather as much intel as available) at the just cost (and speedy trial, conviction, sentence, and execution) of a single round of ammunition?

Even the bowels of the military are now controlled by Leftist bleeding hearts, obviously “led” from the “head” of the snake …

I would bet this little worm goes to trial before the rop type devil’s spawn Ft Hood murderer will? Can’t have the rop type get bent out of shape when one of theirs is found guilty of murdering so many people here in the US now can we? Me thinks this below human will die in prison before he goes to trial?
L

———-
RWM, whoever is the owner of those pictures is a genius in photoshopping or whatever the art. I’ve been trying to tell you for days. You make the world go around, for sure. I’m so glad you are here, in more ways than one.

As frustrating as the delays might seem, the judge here is being shrewd in that Manning’s team has been able to offer every crackpot argument, the judge has duly considered it, and then rejected it, giving reasons in the record that should hold up on appeal.

Thus, the lawyers will be unable to argue on appeal that the judge didn’t let them make some outcome-changing argument, and little Brianna should be given a new trial.

RWM, whoever is the owner of those pictures is a genius in photoshopping or whatever the art. I’ve been trying to tell you for days. You make the world go around, for sure. I’m so glad you are here, in more ways than one.

The question I have been asking since this story first broke, and it has never been answered. What moron put a 19 year old kid in charge of the nations secrets? We expect young people to screw up, that’s why we never trusted them with anything important. You give them time to screw up little things, so they learn not to screw up the big things. Yet some dolt put a 19 year old kid in charge of the great big collection of the nations secrets, and was surprised, astounded, and betrayed when the kid screwed up.

Give the kid time served, and throw the book at the morons who put him in the position where his inevitable screw up would harm the nation.

Without reference to Manning, I’m not happy when any judge disallows any defense. Even if the defendant wants to claim “Martians made him do it,” it ought to be up to the jury to decide if the claim makes sense.

The question I have been asking since this story first broke, and it has never been answered. What moron put a 19 year old kid in charge of the nations secrets? –snip–

… throw the book at the morons who put him in the position where his inevitable screw up would harm the nation.

Snake307 on January 19, 2013 at 6:33 PM

There are a lot of 19 year olds in the military who have access to just as much information as he did, and have handled it very responsibly. The problem is not the age of the kid, the problem is that he was a kid with personal problems, not a man who could act responsibly.

Note, I am NOT excusing him (I have volunteered to be on the firing squad if he is found guilty), but defending the vast majority of young soldiers, sailors, etc. who handle that kind of information properly.

If the press stories that I recall from shortly after his arrest that there were warning signs of instability are true, his superiors should also be facing charges.

Without reference to Manning, I’m not happy when any judge disallows any defense. Even if the defendant wants to claim “Martians made him do it,” it ought to be up to the jury to decide if the claim makes sense.

PersonFromPorlock on January 19, 2013 at 7:55 PM

The judge disallows it because it often isn’t a defense for the action, or claimed wrongly. In this case, it simply doesn’t meet the associated test. Saying you’re a whistleblower because you didn’t know it would hurt the country doesn’t work (disallowed). Saying you’re a whistleblower because you were selective in what you released might work (allowed). He’s saving the everyone a lot of time, because he would otherwise have to spend some time explaining to the jury what whistleblower laws allow and don’t allow – *after* they had already heard all the irrelevant testimony.

Imagine that Bubba shoots someone in the back, from 40 yards away, with no one else out that way for dozens of yards. When Bubba claims self-defense, the judge won’t allow it, as it doesn’t even make sense (unless he was wearing a bomb-vest, perhaps). So, if the defense makes sounds like they will use self-defense as a defense, the judge will caution Bubba’s attorneys not to waste the court’s time.

Imagine that Bubba shoots someone in the back, from 40 yards away, with no one else out that way for dozens of yards. When Bubba claims self-defense, the judge won’t allow it, as it doesn’t even make sense (unless he was wearing a bomb-vest, perhaps). So, if the defense makes sounds like they will use self-defense as a defense, the judge will caution Bubba’s attorneys not to waste the court’s time.

Fine, but let the jury decide. My own experience with jury duty is that the courts don’t worry a whole lot about wasting time.